Scan barcode
tsharris's review against another edition
4.0
Clearly and smartly articulated account of how American politics and government went crazy by two of the best political scientists who write for broader audiences. Not perfect, however, because I think they fail to account for how global capital markets eroded the foundation of the mixed economy. Any attempt at reconstruction has to reckon with mobile capital, and I don't think they do.
onii7's review against another edition
3.0
American Amnesia: How the War on Government Led Us to Forget What Made America Prosper by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson is a book that takes a look at America’s prosperity ever since the introduction to bigger government around the 1900’s, coming from a nation where three in ten babies did not even make it to their first birthday. Firstly, it is described as a provocative book in its marketing campaign as it formats itself in such a way where it presents multiple subtitles or microchapters presenting an issue or ongoing effect in the nation, and describes how their main theme and arguments of the book relate to that particular topic. More specifically, the authors introduce the book with these chapters about things like “the great forgetting” of how the start of a more involved government stepping in with regulations allowed us to live more comfortable, healthy, and happy lives; they say that it has literally made us taller as a people. They then relate this ‘great forgetting’ to many different institutions and societal standards that affect the way we live in society today, for example, healthcare, income, inflation, the media, and so on. Personally, I found that organizing the book in this way was straightforward when understanding the author's main arguments as I always knew what they were going to talk about before they started talking about it. In consequence to this, however, there seemed to be repetition in their claims many times over as it seemed like they were throwing many points at you and missing the important points that they should be making.
As for the arguments themselves, although it is agreeable that “free” markets that are left unattended have consistently led to the worsening of access and rights to marginalized groups, I do not actually know how far Hacker and Pierson wish to take the government in this proposed balancing of the economy through this “thumb and fingers” metaphor. Based on this book alone, Hacker’s arguments come off as liberal at its core, not advocating for things like socialized institutions, redistribution of the wealth through taxes, and the abolishment of broken systems that keep capitalism powerful and damaging, but rather, he is proposing for the balancing of capitalism under a government that has more say on its markets, which is essentially what center-right Democratic core policy consists of in their campaign promises (whether they enact them is a different story). Also, Hacker and Pierson make it known that they are graduates from elite universities and are professional, higher-class constituents of pseudo-progressives like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and has contributed to their healthcare policy plans by advocating for things like employers having to insure their employees through their job’s healthcare plan, or regulating existing private plans. Specifically, he supported Hillary's idea of buying into Medicaid at age 50 and over, saying that this could be the next step towards adding Obamacare to the public option (NPR 2016). In my opinion, these are all band-aid solutions that never actually introduce major policy that helps the entirety of the working class directly. Clearly, the authors hesitate on encouraging policies that are popular, universal, and fully-reconstructive like guaranteed Medicare For All or free higher education with the absolute cancellation of student debt. Afterall, the argument for the book is for a mixed-economy, the presence of more controlled capitalism, and therefore the continuous existence of harmful U.S. institutions like the two-party system, insurance corporations, and soon-to-be more trillionaires that all work together to secure a status quo within the nation that solely pushes for the interest of capital over people with this highly praised big government. Naturally, many opportunities of convincing their audience that government regulation and welfare is good are missed because their main ideas are how we “forgot” what made America prosper, when in reality, it has always only been prosperous for a select amount of people.
As for the arguments themselves, although it is agreeable that “free” markets that are left unattended have consistently led to the worsening of access and rights to marginalized groups, I do not actually know how far Hacker and Pierson wish to take the government in this proposed balancing of the economy through this “thumb and fingers” metaphor. Based on this book alone, Hacker’s arguments come off as liberal at its core, not advocating for things like socialized institutions, redistribution of the wealth through taxes, and the abolishment of broken systems that keep capitalism powerful and damaging, but rather, he is proposing for the balancing of capitalism under a government that has more say on its markets, which is essentially what center-right Democratic core policy consists of in their campaign promises (whether they enact them is a different story). Also, Hacker and Pierson make it known that they are graduates from elite universities and are professional, higher-class constituents of pseudo-progressives like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and has contributed to their healthcare policy plans by advocating for things like employers having to insure their employees through their job’s healthcare plan, or regulating existing private plans. Specifically, he supported Hillary's idea of buying into Medicaid at age 50 and over, saying that this could be the next step towards adding Obamacare to the public option (NPR 2016). In my opinion, these are all band-aid solutions that never actually introduce major policy that helps the entirety of the working class directly. Clearly, the authors hesitate on encouraging policies that are popular, universal, and fully-reconstructive like guaranteed Medicare For All or free higher education with the absolute cancellation of student debt. Afterall, the argument for the book is for a mixed-economy, the presence of more controlled capitalism, and therefore the continuous existence of harmful U.S. institutions like the two-party system, insurance corporations, and soon-to-be more trillionaires that all work together to secure a status quo within the nation that solely pushes for the interest of capital over people with this highly praised big government. Naturally, many opportunities of convincing their audience that government regulation and welfare is good are missed because their main ideas are how we “forgot” what made America prosper, when in reality, it has always only been prosperous for a select amount of people.
cdbaker's review against another edition
3.0
This book was probably too dense for an audiobook. I thought the premise was really interesting though, although I didn't listen closely enough to all the details.
houlette's review against another edition
5.0
If you were to read two books to understand why we are where we are today in 2020, this would be one of them. It combines a compelling case for government's essential role in the US's prosperity in the 20th century with a solid survey of the forces that have been demolishing that role (and the citizenry's belief in that role) for the past forty years. The authors remain optimistic in the end, proposing a pragmatic roadmap for how to rebuild.
mkesten's review against another edition
3.0
That Americans increasingly question the value of collective action is well documented. This manifests itself in a fear that big government acts as constraint on their freedom.
This book turns around that equation and says big government is and has for decades worked to make America a prosperous nation. It goes on to say that Congress has moved in the opposite direction and is starving government of much needed resources.
Who is to be believed?
According to usgovernmentspending.com, Americans will spend $7.56 trillion on government in 2019. About one quarter of that goes to operate state government, another quarter of it goes to operate local government, and roughly one half of that will go to operate the national government, including almost $1 trillion toward national defense. Another $1.69 trillion will cover health care and $1.45 trillion pension and social security benefits. Combined from all levels of government.
The American people would have to be blind or dumb or both not to know what their national priorities actually are.
When their houses burn, when law enforcement acts, when ambulances scream through their streets, Americans must know they, indeed, are paying for it. Fully one-half of government spending is not directed by Washington, and I don’t hear many cries for the dissolution of cities or state governments.
Much of the propaganda generated by libertarian businessmen, by pro-business lobby groups, and not a little by FOX television, is admittedly propaganda directed at national institutions.
Government spending isn’t going away anytime soon.
This book ably documents many of the reasons why people mistrust their national government, as does Jane Mayer in her “Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right,” which came out at roughly the same time as this book.
Government could be bigger or smaller depending on your perspective. On a purely operational basis, government could be a lot smaller, in my opinion, and get the same amount of work done. In the US, 52 state governments duplicate many of the same services and administration, and a hundred or more cities also do the same things.
The barrier to this sort of institutional change would undoubtedly be the compromise in sovereignty people would have. Would uniformity in building standards, or highway construction standards, or even kindergarten curriculum be such a bad thing? Really.
I’m sure there are better commentators than me who argue for less defence spending. Does $1 trillion guarantee no attacks by foes? Does it guarantee fair access to foreign markets? Not likely. Not even $2 trillion would do it.
Part of the inertia built into the American system of government came from the founding fathers themselves who confounded popular sovereignty by including a Senate that answers to all states equally regardless of population. Not to mention an Electoral College who chooses the President by similar means.
If Americans could once agree to dilute their sovereignty in favour of a national government that helped propel them to superpower status, surely it is not such a leap that they could do so again to help peoples around the work contain carbon dioxide emissions, eliminate tax havens for the ultra rich, and curb the power of international crime syndicates.
This book turns around that equation and says big government is and has for decades worked to make America a prosperous nation. It goes on to say that Congress has moved in the opposite direction and is starving government of much needed resources.
Who is to be believed?
According to usgovernmentspending.com, Americans will spend $7.56 trillion on government in 2019. About one quarter of that goes to operate state government, another quarter of it goes to operate local government, and roughly one half of that will go to operate the national government, including almost $1 trillion toward national defense. Another $1.69 trillion will cover health care and $1.45 trillion pension and social security benefits. Combined from all levels of government.
The American people would have to be blind or dumb or both not to know what their national priorities actually are.
When their houses burn, when law enforcement acts, when ambulances scream through their streets, Americans must know they, indeed, are paying for it. Fully one-half of government spending is not directed by Washington, and I don’t hear many cries for the dissolution of cities or state governments.
Much of the propaganda generated by libertarian businessmen, by pro-business lobby groups, and not a little by FOX television, is admittedly propaganda directed at national institutions.
Government spending isn’t going away anytime soon.
This book ably documents many of the reasons why people mistrust their national government, as does Jane Mayer in her “Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right,” which came out at roughly the same time as this book.
Government could be bigger or smaller depending on your perspective. On a purely operational basis, government could be a lot smaller, in my opinion, and get the same amount of work done. In the US, 52 state governments duplicate many of the same services and administration, and a hundred or more cities also do the same things.
The barrier to this sort of institutional change would undoubtedly be the compromise in sovereignty people would have. Would uniformity in building standards, or highway construction standards, or even kindergarten curriculum be such a bad thing? Really.
I’m sure there are better commentators than me who argue for less defence spending. Does $1 trillion guarantee no attacks by foes? Does it guarantee fair access to foreign markets? Not likely. Not even $2 trillion would do it.
Part of the inertia built into the American system of government came from the founding fathers themselves who confounded popular sovereignty by including a Senate that answers to all states equally regardless of population. Not to mention an Electoral College who chooses the President by similar means.
If Americans could once agree to dilute their sovereignty in favour of a national government that helped propel them to superpower status, surely it is not such a leap that they could do so again to help peoples around the work contain carbon dioxide emissions, eliminate tax havens for the ultra rich, and curb the power of international crime syndicates.
barrysweezey's review against another edition
"The vast majority of OECD countries either invest equally in every student or disproportionally more in disadvantaged students. The US is one of the few countries doing the opposite."
barry_sweezey's review against another edition
"The vast majority of OECD countries either invest equally in every student or disproportionally more in disadvantaged students. The US is one of the few countries doing the opposite."
More...